From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #97 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Friday, March 27 1998 Volume 02 : Number 097 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:20:37 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: RE: "Globalism: Dictatorship of the Capital" (A book review of "False Dawn" by John Gray - TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-9, 3/26/98) (fwd) At 8:23 AM -0600 3/27/98, wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:31:36 -0700 >From: Bob Djurdjevic >Reply-To: act@efn.org >To: timed@djurdjevic.com >Subject: RE: "Globalism: Dictatorship of the Capital" (A book review of >"False Dawn" by John Gray - TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-9, 3/26/98) > >>FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/3-9 26-Mar-98 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Topic: GLOBAL AFFAIRS I want it to be very clear, that while I strongly disagree with what Mr. Gray is saying here (and Pauls agreement with him) this isn't any sort of personal thing. If I get to strident, somebody tell me. I enjoy seeing posts like this. >A Review of a New Book, "False Dawn," by John Gray, an Oxford University >Professor, Who Debunks Some Myths of Free Market/Free Trade Aficionados > >GLOBALISM: DICTATORSHIP OF THE CAPITAL This is personification. Capital is a thing it can't dictate anything. What Mr. Grays really saying is that the owners of capital can form a dictatorship. Wich would be true if capital weren't something that any one of us can go out to www.schwab.com and buy. It points out the underyling classist (and therefore IMHO Marxist) mindset about capitalist elitists (another Marxist term). There -are- elites in this country, but their control of political power is -much- more dire a problem imho then their control of capital. (Take fore instance ADM, -please- ; ) >Free Markets and Free Trade Will Lead Wars and Impoverishment of Millions >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - - >------------- > >PHOENIX - Democracy and free trade are rivals, not allies, says John Gray, >an Oxford University professor, in his new book, "False Dawn," which has >just been published in Great Britain by Granta Publications. Ergo, >"democratic capitalism," the globalists' rallying cry, is an oxymoron >designed to fool the designated victim - the world's taxpayer and patriot. >So exporting "democratic capitalism" around the world is like claiming to >be a "benevolent terrorist" (our analogy, not that of the author). > >The preceding is one of the myths which this refreshingly candid book seeks >to debunk. Another is that there is something really new in the so-called >New World Order (NWO) of the 1990s. A scholar who has read history as well >as politics, Gray explains how the world's first and the only experiment >with free markets, free trade and laissez-faire economics in mid-19th >century Great Britain ended up in defeat and led to World War I. Great Britain is a monarchy, and was even more then. One of the causes of World War I IMHO was the hangers on of the monarchy (who were granted - -enormous- economic power). In pre WWI England the climber got knighthood - -first- then became a banker or was given political control of a sector of the empire from wich they could wring capital. >The free market that existed in England from the 1840s to the 1870s was one >of boom in the strictly economic terms of rising productivity and national >wealth. But it was a boom whose social costs were politically >insupportable=D6 "Today's regime of global laissez-faire will be briefer th= an >even the belle =C8poque of 1870 to 1914, which ended in the trenches of the >Great War," Gray predicts confidently. > >Why then can't today's global "social engineers," the Wall Street financial >elite, learn from history and thus avoid making the old mistakes? > >One reason is that they don't view themselves as "social engineers." >Social consequences of the free markets and globalism are ignored by >today's policies of the materialistic NWO plutocrats. The second reason is >that they are driven by the same lust for money and power as the British >bankers and businessmen were in Victorian time. The third reason is that >people like that rarely pay attention to lessons of history. Which is why >they are doomed to repeat it, often at their peril. > >"Those who imagine that great errors of policy are not repeated in history >have not learnt is chief lesson - that nothing is ever learnt for long," >Gray dishes out an ominous summation. "We are at present in the midst of >an experiment in utopian social engineering whose outcome we can know in >advance." Ethnic conflicts. Mass poverty. World war! > > Dictatorship of Capital > >Which is why Gray warns that the attempt to impose on the world the >Anglo-American style free market philosophy will create a disaster on the >scale of Soviet Communism. It will cause wars, worsen ethnic conflicts, >and impoverish millions. Not everything can be traded, nor should be, he >says. > >Such as a kaleidoscope of world cultures, for example. America, the >supposed flagship of the new civilization, is doomed to moral and social >disintegration, Gray predicts. For, "the U.S. will lose ground to other >cultures which have never forgotten that the market works best when it is >embedded in society." And he notes that the free market philosophy is >impoverishing the American bourgeois civilization [i.e., the middle class - >TiM Ed.] just we had reported earlier this year - see TiM GW Bulletins >98/1-1, 1/01/98 and 98/1-2, 1/02/98]. > >Okay, so free markets and free trade have already caused many problems >around the world. But "a disaster on the scale of Soviet Communism?" >Surely that must be an exaggeration? Only to those brainwashed by the NWO >establishment media. This is where another lesson of history comes to the >aid of the open-minded. > > "In an almost inevitable irony this Smithian theory of economic > modernization had much in common with the Marxian theories on > which Soviet institutions had been based. 'Karl Marx' theory of > historical inevitability has been taken up by a new breed of social > engineers, ensconced in the International Monetary Fund, the US > State Department, Western European governments and the editorial > offices of most western newspapers." I gotta say, I resent being called (by implication) closed minded simply for disagreeing with someone. I am still hoping that paul or whoever penned this review will refute what I wrote. I will bow to superior clear logic because my mind is open. However, resorting to implied poison pen like this reflects poorly on the authors confidence in his logic. If he thought the case was compelling enough there would be no need to add the excess typing. BTW Smith is not -my- icon of free markets. And nobody I know claims the IMF is anything to do with FREE markets. Like I said in my last post, it and it's bailouts indicate how far we are from free markets. They forcibly take -your- money and give it to others who not only haven't earned it but have proven their incapacity for competition. >In other words, today's free market globalism is merely another mutation of >Marxism. It's a "red" sheep in a wolf's clothing. Communism was a >dictatorship of the proletariat. Globalism is a dictatorship of the >capital. But both are dictatorships! And both ideologies have been >hatched and crafted in the same mints - the boardrooms of the world's top >bankers. Dictatorship of the proletariat (another marxian fairey tale) my fat hairy middle classed butt. It was an oligarchy that pigs like Lenin and castro occaisionally converted to monarchys. One of the central arguments between Marx and his capitalist opponents was wether capitalism lead inevitably to monopoly and hence to boom and ultimately total bust, or wether free markets naturally broke up monopolies. Well, we haven't tried free markets, but I suggest that the evidence against Marx at this point, well, is fairly conclusive. Socialism does not work (sorry, to shock you all ; ) I say, lets give free markets a try. (And yes, that would involve changes to how corporations do business) >At the start of the century, it was Lenin and his Bolsheviks who destroyed >an ancient culture and millions of human lives ostensibly in the name of >communism. Today, it is the transnational corporations (TNCs) that are the >ruthless soldiers of globalism. TNCs as they exist now are IMHO naturally exclusive of free enterprise. They purchase political powers in the large fun pack size and they warp our legal system to escape liability. Why do we let them? Will they be used to turn us toward socialism? I hope not. > Western Deadly "Experiments" in Russia > >Russia has been the site of two experiments in western utopianism during >this century. The first was Bolshevism... the second was shock therapy, >Gray observes. Both Utopian experiments had enormous human costs. Both >were failed modernizations guided by western theories or models that had >little relevance to Russia's history and circumstances. And both happened far far less under the relative political freedom available in the west. No coincidence that the west was more capitalistic. As has been said before, capitalism, where the individual -chooses- where and what he will work, is the only economic system compatible with political freedom. >Shock therapy aimed to construct a free market in post-communist Russia. >"It produced instead a species of mafia-dominated anarcho-capitalism," the >author says. This after, what, five years? How long has russia -really- pursued capitalism? It didn't start the day the wall fell. Remember, these people had a generation or more to breed out (and in some cases, that is meant - -literally-, lenin did in fact move to eliminate traits of freedom from his peoples gene pool) any entrepreneureal (no sp) spirit. They have been indoctinate for more then a generation with the belief that seeking their own good is evil. Well kids, the middle east didn't build market economies in five, ten or even fifteen years. The russians have a hard row to tow ahead of them. Let's not use their example to start fitting ourselves for the yoke of a centrally planned economy. > "Only an extraordinary blindness to history permitted western >advisers such as (Jeffrey) Sachs to imagine that the question of Russia's >European or Asiatic identity, unresolved since Peter the Great, could be >settled by a few years of market reform," Gray argues. Huh? What's he saying? What does racial makeup have to do with modern politics or economics? >It is possible, in fact probable, that Sachs was indeed merely a blind >soldier of the NWO globalists. But there is no question that those who >picked him for the job; those who financed the "Destruction of Russia >II"-project, carried out by the "reformers" who tried to suck the lifeblood >out of this vast country, had a 20/20 vision. The same greed and hatred of >the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia motivated the western bankers >who financed Lenin and his communist revolution in 1917. I have no idea what any of this is about. Someone please explain it. >Which is why, what Professor Gray benevolently calls "two experiments in >western utopianism," seems to us more like two deliberate acts of malice >against the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia. Now, why would the >western bankers do a fool thing like that? > >"False Dawn" provides a partial answer. Ironically for a book which is >attacking the blind materialism and defending cultural diversity, its >answer is in the economic (i.e., materialistic) sphere. > > "In the late 19th century, Russia entered a period of racing economic > growth comparable to that of early 19th century Britain, 1870s >America, > or China today. In 1880-1917 Russia laid more miles of railway track > than any country in the world at that time; its industrial production > grew at an annual rate of 5.7 % over the whole period, accelerating in > the four years before World War I to 8%. Late Tsarism was an era not > of stagnation but of swiftly advancing modernization." > >So the West Side Gang inflicted Russia with its own invention - the >communist virus - to eliminate a tough competitor, seems to be an >implication. Okay, but why would these supposedly civilized Westerners be >accomplices to murder of so many millions of Russians, especially the >bourgeois (the middle class), the "kulaks" (wealthy peasants), and the >Orthodox Christian clergy? Gray provides a hint, though not a full answer: > > "Russian traits, such as the hostility to commercial self-enrichment > and the sense of country's messianic role that have always been a > feature of Russian Orthodox Christianity." > >It is because of that role - as a leader of the Eastern Orthodox >Christianity which rejects the supremacy of the things materials over >matters spiritual - that Russia, "the third Rome," has been under attack by >the West for the last two centuries. In the 19th century, the "High >Cabal's" (read the British Crown's and its affiliated European snip Wow, I have NO idea what that bit was about. Someone please explain it to me= =2E >the Tsarist secret police, had only 161 full-time employees, supported by a >Corp of Gendarmes of less than 10,000 men. By 1921, the Bolshevik secret >police, the Cheka, accounted for over a quarter of a million men, not >counting Red Army, NKVD, and militiamen." > > Author's Anti-Americanism Detracts from Real Issues > >Yet, Gray never mentioned the enormous numbers of law-enforcement people on >western government payrolls today, ramming the New World Order medicines >down our collective throats. Except when he pointed out the U.S. world >leadership in one infamous category - incarcerations of its citizens. > >"In the United States free markets have contributed to social breakdown on >a scale unknown in any other developed country," he writes. "Families are >weaker in America than in any other country. At the same time, social order >has been propped up by a policy of mass incarceration." This is patently rediculous. Is Gray claiming that in Serbia families are stronger then in the US? In the former eastern republics of USSR? People in these countries are dying at record rates, but they're families are "stronger" then ours?? Strength like that we can do with less of, I say we export it : ) > "All estimates of America's employment record must take into account > America's incarceration rates: Over a million people who would be > seeking work if American penal policies resembled those of any other > western country are behind bars in the US..." OK, I'm a pro at run on sentences. But that last one up there makes me hold my head. We have a -slightly- higher incarceration rate then other western countries (brittain, sweden, etc) -very- slightly largely because they do not imprison drug users. Without delving into the Libertarian Parties second most controversial stand, I'll just say, ... , boy I wish I knew what the heck that sentence meant. >By contrast, in Great Britain, fewer than one in a thousand people are >incarcerated, the author say, while the comparable figure in America is >approaching one in a hundred. "Once this larger context is taken into >consideration the American superiority in job-creation looks slight, >perhaps even illusory," he concludes. I don't beleive that. >Fair enough, so far. But the author's anti-American attitude begins to >show in his subsequent arguments. No, actually. >For example, Gray claims that the "US productivity has been low-around half >that of most European countries." And that that was the reason the U.S. >unemployment figures looked better than the European ones. We have the highest productivity rate in the world. Was this written in 90? The Germans used to have a higher rate then us before the wall (and subsequent migration) fell on them. But, um, no I have no idea how an - -economist- could get something this basic wrong. >Wonder what productivity measurements the author considered before making >such a vague declaration? According to CIA's "The World Factbook 1997," >the U.S. was No. 1 in terms of GDP per employed person, followed by France, >Germany, the U.K. and Japan, among the developed countries. The U.S. was >also No. 1 in the world in terms of GDP per capita, according to CIA's "The >World Factbook 1995." Damn right. >So it would appear that the "False Dawn's" author was FLAT WRONG in this >assertion. Which is too bad, because it cheapens his other arguments and >distracts from some really important issues. Such as how "un-American" the >NWO-sponsored U.S. government really is. It certainly does cheapen his other arguments. >Whenever Gray used the term the "United States government" in a derogatory >sense, he might have considered referring to a variant of the NWO, Wall >Street or Washington elite. Just as is today's British, or any other >western government - alienated from the people which "elected" it. > Rest of review where author flatly disagrees with every single point Gray makes, deleted. To bad the author couldn't have disagreed with the socialism thing and spared us the whole review ; ) > SUMMARY > >Despite its (few) warts, Professor Gray's "False Dawn" signals a new dawn >in discovery of the enormous crime which the global bankers have >perpetrated upon the peoples of the world. Such awareness may help >eradicate future crimes against humanity before the "High Cabal" destroy >more humanity than they already have in the 20th century - 200 million >people and counting, according to R.J. Rummell, a University if Hawaii >professor. Let me re iterate, that the IMF -and- the Federal Reserve wich is held up for scorn by Mr. Djurdjevic is also just as equally scorned by free market economists. IMF, GATT, and the Fed are indicators of the central planning still in our economy. -----> They are the -antithesis- of what free markets are about. <----- >But don't take our word for it. If you don't believe us - buy the "False >Dawn" book! (=A317.99, Granta Publications, ISBN 1-86207-023-7). And then >judge it for yourself. Not a chance, but I certainly will read it as soon as I get a loaner or the Seattle Library gets a copy : )> > >---- >Bob Djurdjevic >TRUTH IN MEDIA >Phoenix, Arizona >e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com > > Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:32:26 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Off topic ALERT (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:50:43 -0800 From: stevens@iglobal.net Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Subject: Off topic ALERT Posted to texas-gun-owners by stevens@iglobal.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I know this doesn't DIRECTLY affect gunowners. Yet. ============================= Law Enforcement Seizures subject of Congressional battle A major battle between the Department of Justice and House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde over a bill for civil asset forfeiture reform may occur before the Easter recess. Last June, after four years of work on the issue, Hyde introduced H.R. 1835, which would have given those who have their assets seized by government agencies more protections against abuse and improper seizure. Government estimates indicate that one out of every ten seizures is conducted against an innocent party. In committee, however, the 19-page bill was gutted of all its protections and replaced by a 65-page Department of Justice version, H.R. 1965, which would give law enforcement even greater powers to seize assets of those not charged or convicted of crimes. The need for substantive asset seizure reform is desperately needed. As Jarrett Wollstein writes in his book, The Looting of America, "If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to a trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense, the Supreme Court has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy." He continues: "Asset forfeiture was virtually unheard of until 1984, when Congress overhauled the federal forfeiture laws to give the government incredible advantages over property owners, and began expanding the list of offenses which could trigger forfeiture. Now there are more than two hundred federal offenses which trigger forfeiture, with more being added every day. But the most terrifying aspect of the legislative scheme in the 1984 crime bill was that it allows the seizing police agency to keep the proceeds of property they seize and forfeit. This inherent conflict of interest has lead to greater and greater abuses as the profits generated have risen - to close to a billion dollars a year for the federal government alone." To make matters worse, most state legislatures are tripping over themselves expanding state forfeiture powers and creating draconian procedures that mirror the federal laws. Massive police lobbying organizations, many of which contribute substantial sums to campaign coffers, vigorously supports these forfeiture expansion bills. Chairman Hyde is concerned enough about the impact of H.R. 1965, that he has offered the text of his original bill, H.R. 1835, to amend the entirety of the current bill. But apart from the showdown with DOJ over the bill, Hyde also faces Rules Committee Chairman Gerry Solomon, who has vowed that "my conscience cannot allow me to release this bill from Rules (committee)". With opposition from both Rep. Solomon and the DOJ, Hyde's efforts to protect Americans from unconstitutional seizures may languish in the House. Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution: http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html Read H.R. 1965 from THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR01965:@@@L Read Hyde's original bill, H.R. 1835, from THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR01835:@@@L - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:15:33 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Paul, [...] Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats all fail to come up with a society that provides the American dream standard of living and personal Liberty. [...] You must first describe the "American dream." Aside from that, I understand your trepidation, since I expressed as much, a prior post. The road to liberty is rocky at best. I for one would not anticipate immediate 'anything' in the regards of reducing government to the level it must be eventually taken to. I think I can safely say that most Libertarians feel the same way in that regard. Although equivocation seems to be the norm around this list at times, I think we all pretty much agree that the one main ingredients needed in any community of people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives. What worst aspect can one look forward to than to wake up one morning to find that your job, your house, and your family and their future are at risk because some frigging jerk has a notion on how to make two more cents by moving to Bumphuc Egypt? No one is asking for a handout here, just some reasonability in the everyday lives of people who must live those lives. But, loosing one's job to some assinine business leader who wishes to make a quick buck at everyone else's expense is not someone I want anywhere near the "American dream", and in fact I don't want them in America at all. Screwing your fellow Americans is not the American dream, at least not as I have come to understand it. If it is, then I say we need a revolution to do some needed killing, and to redefine the the dream in the context of liberty and compasion for one's fellows. No, not handouts at the government dole. Just a damned assurance, that anyone who starts business here, does so with the firm intention of sticking around. There is nothing wrong with competion, there is everything wrong with competition with greed as the motive. Greed is the very aspect we are fighting in our lives of late, and it isn't helped by having people in office who facilitate the loss of freedom and stability by hiring pols who would sell out their mom for 30 pieces of silver. And lastly, damnit, I'm getting damn tired of hearing what's so wrong with American workers who demand a decent wage, for a honest day's work. There's some on this list who are the greediest SOB's I've ever had the opportunity to know. Your stockmarket - and mine, are not the only thing that makes us America. The other part of the equation is the human factor. You neglect to consider what happens when slavery is the rule of the day just so you can winter in Bolivia, or where ever. You forget to understand what happens to tyrants - any kind of tryant. [...] What we need is small government, lots of liberty and lots of small business and few monopoly or oligarchy or multi national corporations. Big anything whether its a church, school system, government or multi-national corporation soon forget what ever they were formed for and focus on self preservation at the expense of society. [...] Amen. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:49:03 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Re: E.J. Totty's recent post. "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible criminality. "demand a decent wage" - depends upon how. If you demand it with a rifle (or a pitchfork) you can certainly count me out. If you demand it at a wage negotiation, fine. "I think we all pretty much agree that the one main ingredients needed in any community of people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the nation has daily life been predictable? This group is Restore Our Constitution not screw the capitalists. Demanding that a corporation provide jobs in a legal contract negotiation or negotiation of special tax benefits, etc. is fine. Stay within willing contracts. I don't think that anyone owes you a job. If you think that providing jobs is so damned easy, try doing it. Go start a business and make a payroll, pay the taxes and obeys the regulations. You might find a little more sympathy for capitalists and some realistic insight into what inspires people to move jobs outside the U.S. jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:12:08 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > > Re: E.J. Totty's recent post. Ok folks, lots of pent up emotion and frustration. Its still a place for civil discussion. I like both your points of view like we were sitting around drinking a few beers and solving the worlds problems on a camp out. Just don't let it get to personal. There is room for discussion and debate among us. There is a open difference between the people like me and the Libertarians and our views on trade, corporate responsibility, and community responsibility. I have been through 16 layoffs, been laid off 3 times, taken a 40% cut in pay and still have friends and relatives who have taken cuts or lost pay over time. It has been a very trying time and I still get post traumatic stress syndrome when I see or hear a layoff close to family and friends. I also have a 11 year old daughter with Autism I would like to see in society some day holding down a job and paying taxes like many of the people who are not so smart on the bell curve that I "feel" we have a cultural, social and religious responsibility to see sharing part of the "American Dream". I am not looking with out my own baggage and bias that affects my judgement and views on these issues. That is why I value your debate because it helps me see my own baggage and learn and study other view points. Thanks, Paul Watson - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:27:56 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Gender Studies Lecture Series (fwd) This should make my blood pressure boil: Here is a lecture coming up at my university: - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:17:45 -0600 (Central Standard Time) Subject: Gender Studies Lecture Series Please join on for next week's Gender Studies Lecture Series "Gender, Globalization and Governance: Gender Relations of the New Network Economies" Brigitte Young, Associate Professor, Freie Universitat Berlin Monday, March 30, 7:00-9:45 pm Student Union Galaxy Room 2.602B - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:27:54 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is > nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible > criminality. War has never been a friend of liberty. There has never been a war in which the people did not lose power and control over their lives to the State. This applies to both "winners" and "losers". > "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > nation has daily life been predictable? Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life is predictable. OTOH, liberty by definition is a lack of externally imposed order. Thus the constant cry for a Fuhrer, a strong man, a dictator, to "restore law and order", particularly the "order" part. The straight-forward solution to achieve predictability, is for those that want it to die. This is within the realm of their own control. And life (such as it is) will be completely predictable for them. > > This group is Restore Our Constitution not screw the > capitalists. It is a simple law of human nature that they provide for their wishes, wants, and needs with the least possible effort. Anybody, Capital or Labor, who gets access to the State's mechanisms of coercion will use them to their benefit and to the detriment of those they wish to steal from. Adopting a moral code which embraces creation and exchange of wealth entails significantly more effort than the alternative: the appropriation without compensation of the wealth of others. Denomination of the victim as Capital or Labor makes no difference. > Demanding that a corporation provide jobs... The language used, "demand", tells you from whence it derives and where it's all going: Use of force or compulsion to achieve results. A "free exchange" and "demand" are fundamentally different things. "Demand" implies the use, or the threat of use, of force. Hardly a Libertarian principle. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:19:08 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) John, [...] "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible criminality. [...] In the context of revolution, where the "people" are endevoring to retrieve their Rights, any death in that endevor is a needed killing. The only criminality is where one attacks a defenseless person. [...] "demand a decent wage" - depends upon how. If you demand it with a rifle (or a pitchfork) you can certainly count me out. If you demand it at a wage negotiation, fine. [...] Negotiation is the only acceptable method in a lawful community. [...] This group is Restore Our Constitution not screw the capitalists. [...] There are 'capitalists', and then there are 'capitalists'. The former are honourable men and women who seek to gain advantage in whatever market they pursue, and then there are the rapists, the raiders and the despoilers, who could not give a diddly iota about their fellows. The latter is of whom I speak. Therefore, restoring the Constitution has everything to do with restoring Rights - everyone's Rights, and not just 'capitalists'. And, in the case you wonder, we do have the Right not to be taken advantage of by monied interests, with an ulterior motive of acquiring the essence of your liberty, and the land under your feet. Tell me just how much liberty you will have when the entire continent is owned by a couple of very rich 'capitalists'. I'd really love to hear the answer to that, John. [...] Demanding that a corporation provide jobs in a legal contract negotiation or negotiation of special tax benefits, etc. is fine. Stay within willing contracts. [...] There is no demanding that _anyone_ provide any jobs, and I'm sure you understood that. But if you are going to provide a job, there is the honesty of ascertaining that the job will (reasonably) be around next week or whenever. Dishonesty is the implied point I made. Hire today - fire tomorrow to rake-in those max profits. Yup, don't we just love our fellow Americans? Bend'em over the barrel every chance we get! [...] I don't think that anyone owes you a job. If you think that providing jobs is so damned easy, try doing it. [...] I never said - or implied that they did. Putting words where they never were isn't like you, John. I suggest you reread my comments. [...] Go start a business and make a payroll, pay the taxes and obeys the regulations. You might find a little more sympathy for capitalists and some realistic insight into what inspires people to move jobs outside the U.S. [...] See my comment above, concerning 'capitalists' vs 'capitalists'. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:38:45 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Harry, If you're gonna eaves drop, pay attention. You are attributing to John, my quotes. Of course, if your are gonna start yelling, why just keep doing it at John, cuz I don't like wearing spittle - it's hell to see with all those dots on the glasses! I'll get back tomorrow on this. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:26:17 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) At 4:49 PM -0500 3/27/98, John Curtis wrote: > Re: E.J. Totty's recent post. > > "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is > nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible > criminality. > > "demand a decent wage" - depends upon how. If you demand > it with a rifle (or a pitchfork) you can certainly count > me out. If you demand it at a wage negotiation, fine. Well said, & this is exactly how a free labor market would deal with the inequities so rampant world wide today. All of us who've seen that Labor unions may have helped stop some troubles in our country in the past should be aware that that is where places like Mexico and India are right now. While I don't know that I have much use for unions here, now (at least not in fields I have direct experience with). I know that I wish the AFL CIO nothing but the best in raising the standard of living of Mexican workers through (-voluntary-) combined negotiation. My opinion anyway. > "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > nation has daily life been predictable? snip > jcurtis I'm rethinking sending a reply I composed earlier that includes a pretty detailed bio of my last decade. I'm sure I've had it easier then some on the list, and certainly harder then others (that whole bell curve thing) but at least speaking for myself, the growth I've gone through that got me where I am today was -largely- if not exclusively do to uncomfortable learning I got at the boot tip of lifes changes. Uncertainty is hard, I'm not claiming it isn't but it is also often the energizing force behind growth. Paul, I'm sorry if uncertainty and change has dealt a hard hand to friends or family of yours. Sincerely, I hope that one day soon everyone you know in a position like that will be able to look back at the hard times. Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:57:24 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > If you're gonna eaves drop, pay attention. > You are attributing to John, my quotes. Uhhhhh, no. John quoted you, and put what you said in quotes. Then he commented on what you said. I commented on what John said, or added to what he said. Interesting characterization: you get on a soapbox and demand attention, then try to tar me with the bias word "eavesdrop" for paying attention, and assert I'm not "paying attention". Interesting approach to debate. Intellectually dishonest, but interesting, nonetheless. > > Of course, if your are gonna start yelling, > why just keep doing it at John, cuz I don't like wearing > spittle - it's hell to see with all those dots on the glasses! "Yelling?" Apparently it's hard to see satire directed at a demand for predictability even without dots on the glasses. Try to be logically consistent. Then we can work on your premises. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #97 ************************